Debating Darwin's Doubt

Today is the day that John Scopes was found guilty in Dayton, Tennessee (USA) 90 years ago. The Intelligent Design Creationists have marked the day with publication of a new book called Debating Darwin's Doubt [A Scientific Controversy That Can No Longer Be Denied: Here Is Debating Darwin's Doubt].

The book was necessary because there has been so much criticism of the original Stephen Meyer's book Darwin's Doubt. David Klinghoffer has an interesting way of turning this defeat into a victory because he declares,

... the new book is important because it puts to rest a Darwinian myth, an icon of the evolution debate, namely...that there is no debate, about evolution or intelligent design!

Nobody denies that there's a debate between evolution deniers and scientists, just as there's a debate between scientists and those who refuse to vaccinate their children or between scientists and astrologers, homeopaths, flat Earthers, and a host of other kooks and quacks.

[Debating Darwin's Doubt] is a sequel. Gathering material from Evolution News & Views, the daily online voice of the intelligent design movement that I also edit, Debating Darwin's Doubt documents the intense scientific arguments sparked by Meyer's book. Top ID scholars respond to Meyer's most challenging critics, from sources ranging from The New Yorker and National Review up to America's most prestigious journal of scientific research, Science.

This is a tacit admission that's there's a lot wrong with the original book. So much, in fact, that a whole new book is required just to spin refute the critics. The IDiots have lined up a bevy of famous scientists (not!) to argue the scientific merits of their claim that gods created the Cambrian animals.

Among the book's 44 chapters are 10 by Meyer, including responses that have not been published anywhere else before. Other authors, led by William Dembski, Douglas Axe, Ann Gauger, David Berlinski, Paul Nelson, and Casey Luskin, take on the critics. Their writing is really an expansion of the case Meyer argues for in Darwin's Doubt, ranging across subjects like orphan genes, cladistics, the notorious "small shelly fossils," protein evolution, the length of the Cambrian explosion, the God-of-the-Gaps objection to intelligent design, and more.

I've ordered a copy of Debating Darwin's Doubt and I'll report on it when I've read it. However, I can guess what they're going to say since I've already discussed it in: What Do You Do When All the Reviews Are Bad?. Here's what I said back in October 2013.

So far the Intelligent Design Creationists have a perfect record. Every single review of Darwin's Doubt by a scientist has been negative. None of them like the book.

What do you do under those circumstances? Remember that the minions of the Discovery Institute aggressively hyped this book in the Spring before it was published. It was supposed to be the book that destroyed Darwinism.

Not to worry. The IDiots have an excuse ... in fact they have several.

1. Ignore the main criticism and focus on details. This is what Stephen Meyer is doing in his response to Charles Marshall's review: When Theory Trumps Observation: Responding to Charles Marshall's Review of Darwin's Doubt.
2. Most reviewers ignore the main arguments. This is the defense offered by David Klinghoffer, that well-known defender of Intelligent Design Creationism, and a non-scientist: A Taxonomy of Evasion: Reviewing the Reviewers of Darwin's Doubt.
3. At least we got their attention. This is what makes David Klinghoffer proud, "Marshall's review stands out. It's important. Not only because Marshall is a distinguished paleontologist writing in one of the world's two most importance science journals ..." [Stephen Meyer Answers Charles Marshall on Darwin's Doubt]. Casey Luskin uses the same excuse in when he writes [Teamwork: New York Times and Science Magazine Seek to Rebut Darwin's Doubt,
   

   It's now evident that, their previous denials notwithstanding, Darwin defenders have been unnerved by Darwin's Doubt. On the same day last week, both the world's top newspaper (the New York Times) and one of the world's top scientific journals (Science) turned their attention to the problem posed by Stephen Meyer.

4. Publicize reviews by non-scientists That's what Denyse O'Leary does in Astonishing innovation: Bethell’s review of Darwin’s Doubt defies tradition, tells you what is in the book. David Klinghoffer does it too: The American Spectator Warmly Welcomes Darwin's Doubt.

That's what you do if all the reviews and bad and you are an IDiot.

I'm really looking forward to a discussion of my own criticisms of Meyer's book. Recall that David Klinghoffer challenged me to review the book [On Darwin's Doubt, Still Waiting to Hear from Big Shots in the Darwin Brigade]. I'm sure he's going to devote at least a few pages to my criticism of Stephen Meyer. I showed that Meyer does not understand molecular evolution. The evidence of his ignorance is overwhelming.

• Darwin's Doubt: A Synopsis
• Darwin's Doubt: The Genes Tell the Story?
• The Cambrian Conundrum: Stephen Meyer Says (Lack of) Fossils Trumps Genes
• Stephen Meyer Says Molecular Evidence Must Be Wrong Because Scientists Disagree About the Exact Dates
• Stephen Meyer Says Molecular Data Must Be Wrong Because Different Genes Evolve at Different Rates
• Stephen Meyer Says That Constant Mutation Rates Are a "Questionable Assumption"
• Stephen Meyer Says that "Homology" Is a Problem in Molecular Evolution

It won't take long for us to demolish all the arguments in Debating Darwin's Doubt. That means we can expect another book in 2017. It will be called: Denying Debating Darwin's Doubt. The one after that (in 2019) will be Defending Denying Debating Darwin's Doubt. The denouement will come in 2021 with Darwin's Doubt is Dead.

---